Pilot-scale study of phosphorus recovery through struvite crystallization – II: Applying in-reactor supersaturation ratio as a process control parameter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot-scale MAP (magnesium ammonium phosphate) crystallizer, which was used to remove/recover phosphorus through struvite formation, achieved ortho-P removal rates of over 90%, for a tested high phosphorus concentration (~220 mg/L). The desired degree of P-removal was achieved by either varying the operating pH or the supersaturation ratio at the inlet. The high P-removals (~90%) were achieved even at a pH of 7.3, which is contrary to the information found in the literature, where generally higher pH values (8.2~9) are recommended. This indicates that alkaline pH is not the only factor that can cause the process fluid to be supersaturated. Using solubility criteria, the in-reactor supersaturation ratio was used to define the metastable zone boundaries. The system performance, both in terms of process efficiency and the quality of the harvested product, was at its best when the in-reactor supersaturation ratio was between 1 and 5. The results showed that there was a narrow working zone for optimized crystallization process and a deviation from the optimal metastable zone always resulted in the plugging of the reactor. Key words: conditional solubility product, crystallization, phosphorus removal, struvite.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it